Dusseldorf School – Drypigment.net

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: Russell Smith’s Source Material

Portrait of Russell Smith by James R. Lambdin and included in “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist” by Virginia Lewis (1956).

Russell Smith (1812-1896) took pride in his nature sketches. Tromping out into the wilderness with stool, paint box and easel was a time-honored tradition for many nineteenth century scenic artists. Sketching trips provided an opportunity to gather source material for future compositions, whether placed in an art gallery or on the stage. These plein air paintings, or portions thereof, were incorporated into many settings for the stage. Twentieth century scenic artists continued this practice, long after printed sources became readily avaialble, as it was a way to hone their artistic skills. Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934) wrote of his sketching trips with fellow artists during the 1880s. His traveling companions included Henry C, Tryon, Walter Burridge, Edward Morange, John H. Young, Hardesty Marratta and many others, publishing his recollections of the outings years later. They all had ties to Russell Smith.

Scenic artists who were associated with the Düsseldorf School, such as Sosman & Landis artists David Austin Strong (1830-1911), also supported plein air painting, leaving the four walls of their studios to work from nature as it was integral to the artistic process. Strong was a contemporary of Smith who also sought training in Europe and became a prolific scenic artist in his own right. He was one of the original scenic artists for “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s garden in 1866 and later settled in Chicago, working at the Sosman & Landis studio. Strong’s work was well known throughout the United States in hundreds of theaters from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to Chicago, Kansas and California.

I think back to Moses’ records describing the numerous sketching trips where he peacefully sat and captured the pristine beauty of mountain valleys, sunlit meadows, and babbling brooks. Their trips to the Catskills, Rocky Mountains, Canadian Rockies, New Mexico, California, and many other picturesque locations were immediately incorporated into both small-scale and large-scale projects, ranging from art exhibitions to scenic spectacles. The expansion of America’s railway system opened up possibilities for ambitious artists.

Detail of 19th century sketching box sold on eBay

Smith discussed in detail the need for nature studies throughout his journals. Virginia Lewis included many of these remarks in her 1956 book “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist.” Of note, Smith acknowledged that some artists replicated specific engravings or paintings, while he used his own materials. Of mentioning the need for nature studies, one director responded, “Oh what’s the difference so its pretty, you’ll spend much money and time making sketching tours when you could buy something just as good or better by Calame or Harding for fifty cents.” The manager was referring to the many lithographs available at the time by Alexandre Calame (1810-1864) and James Duffield Harding (1798-1863).

Calame was a lithographer and a popular artist associated with the Düsseldorf school of painting, as Strong had been. A Swiss landscape painter, Calame’s work was featured in numerous series of lithographs depicting picturesque mountain regions. Similarly, Harding’s work was readily available in print form for scenic artists to replicate. Harding was an English landscape painter, lithographer and author of drawing manuals. Harding’s “Lessons on Art,” “Guide and Companion to Lessons on Art,” “The Principles and Practice of Art,” and “Elementary Art, or the use of the chalk and lead pencil advocated and explained,” were widely sought after.

Much more could be said of both Calame and Harding, but the main issue at hand is Smith’s identification of artists whom opted for printed sources in lieu of sketching trips. Nature studies provide training for the artistic eye, something a printed work cannot do. Although the blue in a lithograph can be replicated, it is not the same as capturing the brilliancy of a clear blue sky. There is a depth of color that is lost in translation in print form.

The difference between the artists who easily purchased prints for reference instead of creating their own can be identifiable in their painting, taking on a flat and lifeless characteristic that accentuates any overall lack of skill. Sitting outside and observing nature, trying to replicate the color of atmospheric landscapes yields different results than those who dutifully copy a print. Smith continued to describe the artists who “captured the truth.”

Near the end of his life, Smith wrote, “What I am going to say of some scene painters I knew in early life I hope may not be attributed to the general tendency of the old to praise the past at the expense of the present. There were forty or fifty years ago, some, in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, that were true artists; men who could make a fine original drawing from nature, and paint a scene possessing much truth as well as beauty; and were not content to work from print only. Robert Jones, a pupil of Stanfield’s was one of these, but seemed to aim more in the style of Turner. Then there was James and William Coyle, both of whom had painted with Marinari in Drury Lane Theatre, were excellent in Gothic and Picturesque architecture. Whilst Harry Wilkins, a pupil of Naysmith’s, the Edinburgh landscape painter, was admirable in landscape, trees and rocks. Hugh Reinagle, a brother of the Royal Academician Reinagle, was also a very fine architectural painter. So was Mr. Hilliard, well known in New York. I have preserved specimens of the work of all these painters and any good artist can see the truth of what I say. Now there is such a glut of design, in fine woodcuts, engravings, chromes, photographs, and even paintings that a young man who can copy and desires to paint scenes, can for a little money, supply himself with a collection that will enable him to furnish a scene of any subject, or a view of any remarkable place; and like all easily acquired knowledge, is very shallow. As a consequence there are a very few scene painters now who could rank as an artist-studying and bringing from Nature their skill. Many believe that the same may be said of actors in general; but of that I cannot pretend to judge.”

Smith passed away in 1896. His work remains part of the American scenic art legacy, artists who saw value and benefit in gathering source material from nature. These were also artists who worked in both small scale and large scale, each requiring a unique skill set and distinct understanding of contrast, color, and detail for each. Many artists can produce small artworks, easily transported and hung on both private and public walls. Not all are able to successfully transition their ideas to a large-scale format that is best viewed from a distance. Tightly painted and detailed artworks become fuzzy from the back of an auditorium. The stage demands the separation of color and an increased contrast that allows the audience’s eye to work and see the illusion. Smith could do it all.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 680 – The Scottish Rite in Fargo, North Dakota, 1900

The Scottish Rite in Fargo, North Dakota, 1900

The past few posts examined early Scottish Rite contracts between the Guthrie Scottish Rite and E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing company between 1899 and 1900. Another Scottish Rite theater project occurred during this same time in Fargo, North Dakota. It also included a scenery collection manufactured by Sosman & Landis.

The first steps toward a new Masonic building in Fargo began during 1894. Land was not purchased until February 1898, with the contract for work being finalized during May 1899. On June 7, 1899, the cornerstone was laid for the Masonic Temple at 501 First Avenue North in Fargo. It would be the home to several Masonic orders in Fargo. The building was first occupied on June 6, 1900, but not fully completed. This building would include a Scottish Rite theater, lodge rooms, banquet hall, kitchen, billiard room, armory, reception room and offices. In 1914, an addition was made on the west side of the building. A library, museum, gymnasium, and swimming pool were included in the work. All told, this massive complex included 55,155 square feet of total floor space. The building would be home to the Scottish Rite until 1968 when it was razed as part of an urban renewal plan. In 1968, the Masonic Temple was purchased by the Fargo Parking Authority with the intent to construct a parking lot. Demolition began on June 19, 1968.

The Scottish Rite auditorium in the Fargo Masonic Temple pictured in a 1903 Reunion program

The Scottish Rite stage in the Fargo Masonic Temple pictured in a 1903 Reunion program

Scene created by Sosman & Landis for the Fargo Scottish Rite stage

The turn of the twentieth century is a period at Sosman & Landis produced some absolutely stunning work. The nineteenth-century aesthetic still dominated Scottish Rite scenery, as scenic artist and stage carpenter David A. Strong (1830-1911) was still actively involved with its production. Thomas G. Moses was on his way out the studio door again; this time to start a new business with Will Hamilton, establishing Moses & Hamilton in NYC during 1900. Back in Chicago, Strong still reigned as the “Daddy of Masonic Design” and was still very active as a scenic artist at the Sosman & Landis studio. My research suggests that Strong was very involved in the production of scenery for Little Rock (1896, 1899, 1901), Oakland (1896), Wichita (1898), Guthrie (1900), and Fargo (1900). After 1900, his contributions to Scottish Rite scenery begin to diminish.

Fellow scenic artists referred to Strong as “Old Trusty” and a member of the Dusseldorf School. Of Strong, Moses wrote, “His color was deep and rich and his drawings very correct.” In “Paint Mimic Scenes, Men Who Have Found Fame in the Wing and Drop Curtains” Strong was included as a well-respected scenic artist with the article reporting, “David Strong, “Old Trusty,” still at work in this city, is the only survivor of the good old Dusseldorf school. Everything that comes from his facile brush – and he could walk over miles of canvas of his own painting – has the quality of opaqueness peculiar to his school and seldom found nowadays. (“Chicago Sunday Tribune” article, Dec, 18, 1892, page 41). It is the comment “seldom found nowadays” that rings true. Even in 1892, the artistry of Strong’s generation was diminishing. The last vestiges of this art form are likely still hanging in a handful of Scottish Rite stages across the country.

Sosman & Landis scenery produced for Little Rock, Wichita, Fargo and Guthrie, have a unique aesthetic and compositional approach to the painting. Like a person’s signature, it is easy to identify that a particular scenic artist worked for all four collections. Artworks associated with the Dusseldorf school included an active middle ground, with the primary not taking place in the fore ground. The 1892 “Chicago Tribune” article comment about the “quality of opaqueness” to Strong’s work; this was in direct contrast to the English practice of glazing (Chicago Tribune, Dec. 18, 1892). The opaque application of solid color for Strong also meant that a subject could be worked up from dark to light, the approach of the slapdash tradition. The use of glazes often meant that the composition was painted up in the reverse, from light to dark. Each was a successful method, yet supported differing approaches to color mixing and paint application. That being said, most audiences would be unable to identify the differing techniques or aesthetic nuances as they both read well from a distance.

Sosman & Landis setting for the Scottish Rite stage in Fargo, North Dakota.

Sosman & Landis setting for the Scottish Rite stage in Guthrie, Oklahoma.

A second scenic artist also contributed scenery to the Little Rock, and Wichita collections during this time, approaching the subject matter in the English tradition of glazing. However, this style is only apparent in a few settings, such as the Egyptian scenes and Royal Chamber. Overall, the majority of the scenery for Scottish Rite collections during the late nineteenth century at Sosman & Landis has in identical feel and aesthetic approach to the subject matter. My research suggests that it was Strong who was the main artist; he would have been in his mid to late sixties at the time. Few pieces beyond the 1904 Sosman & Landis scenery installation for the Duluth Scottish Rite remain and are, what I believe to be, indicative of Strong’s work. The floral wreaths for the 1909 setting of Darius’ Festival Palace created for the Scottish Rite in Winona, Minnesota, was another example. However, by 1909, Strong was 79 years old, and likely unable to contribute as much painting to each Scottish Rite project. Keep in mind that Storng was one of the artists for the original production at the “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s Garden in 1866. “The Black Crook” is considered by many to be America’s first musical.

For more posts about Strong, see past installments #127, 215, 248, and 382.

Sosman & Landis setting for the Scottish Rite stage in Austin, Texas, using glazing techniques.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 248 – Men Who Found Fame in the Wing and Drop Curtains, the Scenic Artists

The same year that the Sosman & Landis Annex studio opened, an article appeared in the Chicago Sunday Tribune, “Paint Mimic Scenes, Men Who Have Found Fame in the Wing and Drop Curtains” (Dec, 18, 1892, page 41). Here is the continuation of that article started in installment #245.

“Chicago has every reason to feel proud of her scenic coterie. Out of its hundred or more members but a few can be briefly noticed. There are memories of poor Minard Lewis, an artist essentially English in feeling, some of whose “drops” are still preserved in the Grand Opera House; Lewis [Louis] Malmsha, whose finished work graced the old McVicker stage; John Mazzanovitch, whose witchery in waters with reflected foliage and charm of middle distance in exteriors was also associated with this house. All of these are dead. Richard Halley, at present winning laurels as a painter in Europe, was the scenic artist for Kelly and Leon in the halcyon days of minstrelsy and painted marbles in distemper almost as well as Kilpatrick does them at present in oil. David Strong, “Old Trusty,” still at work in this city, is the only survivor of the good old Dusseldorf school. Everything that comes from his facile brush – and he could walk over miles of canvas of his own painting – has the quality of opaqueness peculiar to his school and seldom found nowadays.

Ernest Albert is undoubtedly the best student in architectural work in this country. Everything that his deft hand touches is full of authority and rich in color. That he is also an idealist has been demonstrated by his spectacular creations, the first at the Chicago Opera-House and Auditorium. In interior decoration, tapestries, etc., he has few equals, and follows the same medium in distemper as the aquarelists. One of the great giants of the scenic world was William Voegtlin, the greatest deceiver of transformation effects that ever walked the paint bridge. He had a style peculiarly his own and seemed to incorporate the stunning effects of all schools, but was not without artistic weakness and peculiarities. In some respects his drawing had the weakness of Morgan, but his color was wonderfully vivid, and he was a grand master with foil. In this latter respect he was only rivaled by Thomas Noxon of St. Louis, a remarkable artist in spectacle. Voegtlin often ate and slept on the paint frame for weeks at a time during the rush of a great production. Then followed a period of dissipation, when his painting was very “red.”

Walter Burridge is the best foliage painter in this country, and is in all respects as an artist of out door nature the equal of Richard Beverly, who holds the palm for the line of work in England. The leaves of his foliage appear to be agitated, and his atmospheric feeling is remarkable.

Thomas G. Moses is an artist of solid merit who does an immense amount of work, but who has small opportunity to exercise his creative faculty.”

This list of scenic artists presented in the article continues tomorrow, but I want to pause here about the entry concerning Thomas G. Moses. He would soon leave the Sosman & Landis studio again – this time for New York. I have to wonder if the article was a turning point for him. The description of Moses as a scenic artist “who has small opportunity to exercise his creative faculty” must have been quite a blown. There is nothing like reading a statement that basically says, “unable to achieve his full potential.” Moses’ creative wings were clipped by studio work. I think that this one sentence spoke to a much larger issue at hand and I doubt that Moses was ever really happy at the studio, even after he became the company’s president. He saw the money that could be made and how little profit he received in the end, especially after all of his hard work, “hustling,” and extended absences from his family.

Then there is the aspect of personal artistry and public acknowledgement of your work by colleagues. The article negates his overall contribution to scenic design and art for the stage in 1892. When you look at some the exciting theatrical effects being produced for the stage by close friends and past co-workers, it must have been frustrating. He was now reduced to standing on the sidelines. Were Sosman & Landis primarily seeking profit through numbers? The article mentioned 1300 jobs in a decade. In 1892, Moses’ life and work at the Sosman & Landis studio appears to have been reduced to primarily painting stock scenery and drop curtains. He had a steady salary, but knew that there were much more exciting projects out there.

To be continued…

For past installments on the scenic artists mentioned above, see: Ernest Albert (installment # 131, 133-139, 145, 154, and 179); Walter Burridge (installments 127, 128, 131-140, 155, 171, 179, 185, 217, 218, 225, 231, 244, and 248); David Strong (installment # 65, 123-131, 153-155, 167, 199, 215 and 248); William Voegtlin (installment # 248); Thomas Noxon (installment # 89, 92, and 136) and Louis Malmsha (installment # 123-4, 127, 131, 133, 165-66, 178 and 198).

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 129 – The Düsseldorf School and Scenic Art

The artistic seeds from the Düsseldorf School found fertile ground in the magical landscapes of the Hudson River Valley movement. Artworks associated with American Romanticism also appeared on the stage as theatrical settings. For Freemasonry, foreign lands rife with mythology and mysticism were perfect compositions to accompany their newly formed degree productions during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Exotic compositions romantically rendered by scenic artists for the stage must have been breathtaking for both fraternal and commercial audiences. Unlike fine art pieces, their theatrical imitations could be backlit. Radiant sunsets and spectacular thunderstorms would bring the compositions to life. Throw in a few performers and – voila – the audience was transported to another world!

It was the works of Thomas Cole, Albert Bierstadt, John Frederick Kensett, David Johnson, William Stanley Haseltine, Sanford Robinson Gillford, Jasper Francis Cropsey, Jervis McEntee, Thomas Moran, Samuel Coleman, Worthington Whittredge and many other American artists who greatly influenced the aesthetic for popular entertainment. Foreign scenes rendered with this romantic aesthetic were especially well received on the fraternal stage. One second-generation Hudson River School artist, Frederick Edwin Church (1826-1900) sought new subject matter and traveled to Nova Scotia, Ecuador, Mexico, Europe, North Africa, the Near East and Greece. His works were especially significant in the development of degree productions. Church’s compositions, like those of his instructor Thomas Cole, were a source of opulent light and life in foreign composition that gave many degrees a theatrical soul.

Sailing to Greece in 1869, Church captured images of the Parthenon, a structure that he called “the culmination of the genius of man in architecture.”

Frederick Edwin Church, The Parthenon, 1871.

Painted detail. Frederick Edwin Church, The Parthenon, 1871.

In looking at his work, I was reminded of a Scottish Rite setting for the fifteenth degree that depicted the Ruins of the Temple. Church’s renditions of the Parthenon and other ancient structures glowed under the radiant embers of sunset. His artworks may have been inspirational for many scenic artists who painted Scottish Rite drops, such as those created at Sosman & Landis studio.

Austin Scottish Rite. Photograph by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2016.

Painted detail. Austin Scottish Rite. Photograph by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2016.

Scenic artists frequently transferred the work of others to the stage, a practice that has continued in our industry. Compositions from David Roberts’ (1796-1864) early nineteenth-century travels to the Holy Land appeared on both commercial and fraternal stages across the country.

David Roberts, The Forum, 1835. Manchester City Galleries.

David Roberts, The Ruins of Memnomium, 1855.

I have often documented images of landscapes, temples and other Egyptian ruins by Roberts that were repurposed for Scottish Rite degree work. However, it was the addition of the Düsseldorf and Hudson River School stylistic approach that brought his settings to life on the stage.

I keep returning to some of the same Scottish Rite scenery collections where I believe that Strong’s work remains visible. The “returning” is like looking for my car keys and knowing that I set them on a table, even though I have not laid eyes on them yet. You can see the stylistic rendition of one particular artist, but just need to figure out which one. Like the seascape, I believe the temple ruins settings were primarily painted by Strong. It was the painting of rocky outcrops and turbulent seas that made me recall 3^rd degree production settings. It was the lighting and placement of the crumbling columns that made me think of pairing Church’s paintings with Strong’s technique.

Frederick Edwin Church, Broken Column, Parthenon, 1869. Oil on board.

Possibly the work of David Austin Strong for the Austin Scottish Rite Temple Ruins setting. Photograph of painted detail by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2016.

This is similar to looking at someone’s handwriting and trying to identify their unique “S,” “I,” “E” or “Y.” If it all looks like chicken scratch, then you start looking for specific words to decipher, before letters. For the stage, you identify the movement, then the artist, and finally the composition. There are stoplights all along the way, clearly visible from a distance if you just step back. You just have to observant and see them approaching before you run the red light.

Strong painted some of the earliest fraternal scenery for Sosman & Landis when they were first producing Southern Jurisdiction installations. He was given most of the Masonic projects because he was a Mason. We know this from Moses’ typed manuscript, as he worked in the same studio with Strong when the projects were assigned to the artists. Strong had been a Freemason since 1852 and Chicago Scottish Rite Mason since 1876. By 1900, Strong was an old hand at both ritual and degree settings.

Painted detail. Pasadena Scottish Rite. Photograph by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2016.

Although the original theaters where his drops first hung are long gone, many of the painted drops are still in use. They were resold to other Valleys and still hang above these stages. Original scenery collections for Guthrie, South McAlester, and Little Rock currently reside in their second homes at Austin, Yankton, and Pasadena. These are just three examples of dozens that have served double duty during their lifetime, many of which are still available to examine and document.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 128 – The Düsseldorf School and David A. Strong

When I stumbled across the newspaper article where Walter Burridge commented on David A. Strong being the “only survivor of the Düsseldorf School,” I started to wonder what other scenic artists from his era might have been associated with the group. Burridge’s comment was made in 1892, and although the movement was not over, what was considered its “golden age” had certainly passed. I wanted to see if I could find some connections between the Strong’s painted scenes for the theatre and artists from the Düsseldorf movement. As I studied hundreds of works, numerous stage settings came to mind, especially for Scottish Rite degree productions. The rise of this movement occurring during the early development of Masonic degree productions appeared to be a perfect pairing.

The Düsseldorf School referred to a group of painters who either taught or studied at the Düsseldorf Academy (now Düsseldorf State Academy of Art). An extension of the German Romantic movement, it had a significant influence on nineteenth century landscape painting from the 1830s through the 1860s. The artists’ works were characterized by dramatically lit landscapes, often with historical subjects or allegorical stories. What a wonderful foundation for Masonic degree productions and the artists that created the stage settings!

The focal point of their compositions often fell in the middle ground with dark framing masses placed at the sides, using a realistic and detailed treatment for the forms. Roads, trails, streams, and other visual paths also drew one into the composition. I immediately recalled the forest compositions, the Road to Jerusalem, and the bridge scenes. As on the commercial stage, this was a popular method used in many theatrical settings.

Those associated with the Düsseldorf School also supported plein air painting, where you leave the four walls of your studio and work from nature. This remained a continued practice for many artists, including Thomas G. Moses and his contemporaries. I thought back to his numerous sketching trips where he sat in meadows, rocky mountain landscapes, and beside babbling brooks, to not only capture the beauty of nature for his future fine art works, but also record these same subjects for his future stage compositions. Moses’ trips to the Catskills, Colorado, New Mexico, California, Canadian Rockies, and many other picturesque locations were all incorporated into his small-scale and large-scale artworks.

When the Düsseldorf School was under the direction of Friedrich Wilhelm Schadow (1789-1862) from 1826-1859, many American painters flocked to the school during this time. The methods taught there were spread to many other academies throughout Germany and other countries. Those connected to this artistic movement would also have a significant influence on the later Hudson River School artists of the United States. For more information about this school within an international context from romanticism to impressionism, please see “The Düsseldorf School of painting and Its International Influence 1819-1918” (Bettina Baumgärtel, Editor, 2012).

One example of the Düsseldorf School produced by Andreas Achenbach.

In looking back at some of the Scottish Rite compositions, such as the rocky seacoast, they are extremely reminiscent of both the Düsseldorf and Hudson River artists. The compositions remain basically the same, but the painting of the scene by the same hand at the Austin Scottish Rite, Fargo Scottish Rite, Salina Scottish Rite, Winona Scottish Rite and some others are truly unique. I believe that they are all the work of Strong.

Fargo Scottish Rite. Photograph by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2005.

Painted detail. Fargo Scottish Rite. Photograph by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2005.

There is a distinct departure from this “Düsseldorf approach” post-1911 as depicted in the setting for the Grand Forks Scottish Rite.

Painted detail. Grand Forks Scottish Rite. Photograph by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2013.

The Austin (original Guthrie scenery 1900), Salina (1901), Fargo (1903), and Winona (1909) settings have what Burridge suggested of Strong’s work as the only survivor of the Düsseldorf school with “the quality of opaqueness peculiar to his school.” I believe that the “opaqueness” referred to is the dark framing masses that make the middle for he composition glow, especially effective in the rocky seascapes. There is an underlying depth and rich quality to the masses. When compared with similar compositions across the country manufactured by Sosman & Landis studio artists after Strong’s passing, there is a much more even distribution of values throughout the seascape, even on the rocky shores.

To be continued…